ConservaWonk: Conservatism, Foreign Policy and Philosophy: Competing With IR Students

Competing With IR Students

Below is my response on Dan Drezner's blog to a question e has on his IR student;s finals. He promises some comments soon, I am curious what he'll say.

Below is the question and my response. Note that I did use bits and pieces of an op-ed I had already written, but I thought it appropriate. Most of the other responses dive into economic theory. Should mine? I'll let the readers judge.

"When China becomes the world's largest economy, the current era of globalization will come to an end. The simple fact is that while Great Britain and the United States had open liberal polities, China does not. This will foster mutual suspicion between China and the west, as well as discourage China from fully opening up its domestic market. That, plus the geopolitical tensions that come from a hegemonic power transition, means we can expect a new era of mercantilism."

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement? Why or why not?

Response:

Only a mere century ago man thought the world would never devolve into catastrophic warfare because economic interdependence would make it too costly. Famous books were written to bring home that point. Books like Norman Angell’s “Great Illusion” clearly made the elite opinion of the day swoon by arguing that it was folly to believe a great war would ocurr. Indeed, the belief in a large conflagration was the supposed "Great Illusion" that should be dispensed with due its very irrationality and economic incomprehensibleness.

A single day in June 1914 put an end to the mockery of that “Great Illusion.”

Similarly, the belief in the infinite potential of contemporary globalization is likely to be just as unfounded as that of the pre World War I era. However, globalization's actual end will only in a limited way be due to the rise of China's economy, its political system, east-west conflicts, or any neo-mercantilist policy it might engage in.

Globalization will end when the traditional concerns of populations and their leaders emerge once more and create incentives for policies that are not economically sensible.

Pride, envy, fear. These very human emotions drive much of human history, in many ways, they drive it more than rationalized economic theory would seem to dictate and most economists predict.

Many countries, not only China, will succumb to these traditional concerns. The potential sparks for a massive retrenchment into efforts at achieving autarky are legion. It could be a massive WMD based terror attack. It could be a pandemic that is far more problematic than H1N1. It could be destabilizing arms races that emerge in strategically important areas. It could be domestic backlash in America. It could be domestic backlash in the EU. It could be a domestic backlash in China.

Indeed, it could be any number of things or an impossible to decipher combination of factors. However, to distill globalization's end due to the rise of a single nation, irrespective of the rapidity of the rise and the awe it inspires, is too simplistic.

Globalization will end because human nature is what it has always been. Of course, the Alexandrine desire for universality will likely emerge after such a period of retrenchment once more as well. Thus, does Sisyphus make another attempt to push the boulder over the top of the mountain."